robbinhood @ robbinhood @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

30

Joined

4 days ago

They shall be tut-tutted once, tut-tutted twice, tut-tutted three times. And they might get a stern glare as well.

And if they gut medicaid, that'll push pestilence even further and contribute to death as well. The situation in Ukraine contributes to war.

I've never bought into the apocalypse stuff but it's interesting how quickly and easily things line up.

I'm pretty sure once she crosses into "physical" action (not the right word but not sure what to use) she's probably just getting removed herself. In this hypothetical case, maybe that encourages widespread resistance, but I think we'll hear crickets in a few weeks.

If she's going to extreme measures, probably best to do so as a last resort. She might be able to pin Adams under state laws or other mechanisms to try and remove him. If nothing else, better to go into a showdown with Trump with stronger legal backing.

So what does the governor do? What does anyone do? What's "the" action? The only avenue forward is hopefully legal measures because if governor breaks any serious laws she's done and nothing happens.

Yeah, it is all political theater because one party is much more powerful than the other.

True, sticks won't bring about world peace on their own. Might save Europe from getting whacked for now.

Yeah I think we all agree Trump doesn't give AF about what's legal. But crucially, Trump can do that because he's commander in chief of the world's largest military, has a Supreme Court that supports him, has a rabid base that would go to war for him, and a Congress that overall is more favorable to him than Democrats.

In other words, Trump is in a position to flout rules. The governor is not. This doesn't make me happy. I don't support it. But it is what it is.

Hopefully we reach a war-free era in the not so distant future and humanity prospers.

There were three guys with sticks. China couldn't project power far but Soviet-Sino relations were strained and the risk of war was high because they share borders.

I'd love for there to be a world with no sticks period but humanity is a long way from that. Europe becoming the forth guy with a stick could force everyone else, and especially Russia, to be more cautious. And if it comes to blows, the EU/UK are gonna want to have that stick.

If you're EU/UK and multiple parties are around you with big sticks, would you rather be defenseless or have a stick?

"Do you honestly think having some legal justification would change anything about how Trump would respond?"

Not sure where you're going with this. Sadly, we're in a might makes right era. I'd be surprised if Trump pays more than cursory attention to the lawyers advising him.

Pretty much the only thing the governor can do is political theater or resigning in protest (which Trump could care less about).

I mean yeah, it can work exactly that way. The Cold War was horrifically bloody in many countries and regions, but the USA and USSR directly slugging it out would have bathed the world in much more blood. Likewise, the Soviets and China going at it in a full scale war after the Soviet-Sino split would have been horrific.

It's a high risk strategy but not one without rewards.

I'm not a we go high when they go low kinda guy but it'll be really hard for a governor to act like Trump. And it'll be especially hard if said governor has to go up against Trump. It's hard to compel Trump because who enforcers anything on him? Yet Trump is probably drooling at the possibility of sending federal agents to arrest a governor.

None of this makes Trump's abhorrent behavior okay, of course.

Sure. And that reinforces my point, better for Europe to have its own stick.

Beyond which, amid AI, aging populations, global warming, blah blah, many countries are going to face serious internal challenges. At least for the USA, the pressure will make the global hegemony harder to sustain. Amid surging debt, it's not hard to envision a world where the USA literally can't afford to shield Europe. Get saner minds than Trump leading the USA, and it may be possible to establish a more equal and mutually beneficial relationship of peers.

I mean, if Europe doesn't need the USA, that's good for them? Like, congrats?

The reserve currency is a tricky thing and will likely hurt the USA in the long run. If nothing else, America won't be able to export its inflation.

But if that leads to more options for international trade, it's possible that the world as a whole benefits.

BeHoLD tHE pOWeR oF a TuT tUT!

I loathe the idea of agreeing with Trump and friends, but I do think he is right in pushing for Europe to be more self reliant and battle ready. I distinctly remember Obama pushing Europe to increase defense spending and he got some pledges but I don't think they bore much fruit. Trump's harder stance may have and might be forcing Europe to step up a bit more. Even if so, he still could have handled the whole situation a bit better. Less public belittling and NATO bashing, for example, even if he and this representatives are taking a harder stance behind the scenes.

I feel terrible for laughing at this. Guess I should submit and go belly up myself in repentance.

Sardonic humor is practically a necessity for survival at this point. Really glad that this wasn't a high lethality crash.

I once stumbled on a discussion, on Reddit I think (or maybe it was Twitter) from a small-time farmer who basically admitted that most farmers in his position realized regulations were important and could be a force for good, but large agri-businesses constantly flouted rules and never got anything more than a slap on the wrist when caught. A sort of "rules for thee, not for me" situation. And so all the small time farmers had to cut corners and ignore regulations to remain competitive and viable.

Overly complex regulations could increase the barrier of entry for newer companies, small time entrepreneurs, etc. In some instances it can actually be in the interest of large, established companies to maintain overly complex regulatory environments as it keeps competition out of the market.

Insightful simplification of regulations that increases their effectiveness while reducing unnecessary burdens might be feasible, and also, beneficial for society as a whole.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we're going to get that with this administration. They're just going to smash and break, and at best, they might realize they broke some important things and perhaps repair it to a limited extent.

edit: clarified a few points.

Great points and well put.

But if we do that how will the uber rich afford their 4th homes? Could you imagine getting by with just three homes?

(In truth, if too much wealth ends in the hands of the few, there won't be enough money to sustain the consumption needed for economies to prosper.)